International Development: Epistemology & Reason

The section establishes the historical backdrop for the rise of international development, situating it within the specific post-World War II political and ideological climate. The devastating impact of the war, coupled with the growing Cold War tension between the capitalist West and the communist bloc, created a unique environment that fostered the need for a new global framework. The United States, emerging as the dominant economic and military power, played a pivotal role in shaping this framework. The text highlights the perceived connection between poverty, hopelessness, and political instability leading to radical regimes such as the Nazi party, emphasizing the perceived need for international intervention to prevent similar outcomes. This impetus, while seemingly altruistic, was also driven by strategic geopolitical concerns to counter the influence of the Soviet Union. The Bretton Woods Agreement (1945) is referenced, highlighting the US's concern about a self-interested Europe resorting to restrictive practices that could trigger another global economic crisis. The creation of international institutions such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund is presented as a direct outcome of this post-war context, setting the stage for the subsequent development of development theories.

This subsection delves into the dominant development theories that shaped the initial decades of international development efforts. The text notes the lingering skepticism toward free-market capitalism following the Great Depression and World War II, leading to a preference for state interventionist approaches. The contributions of prominent economists like Rosenstein-Rodan (1944), with his emphasis on coordinating the economy via a 'big push' of state investment, and Lewis (1954), with his focus on the role of the state in utilizing surplus labor from traditional economies, are highlighted. These theorists are presented as pivotal in establishing state-interventionist theories as the prevailing paradigm in development practice. The adoption of these theories by Western powers, especially the United States, influenced the policies of newly formed international institutions like the World Bank and IMF. The existing international order, which had been formally recognized through the United Nations, emphasized national sovereignty which further consolidated the state's role in the development process. The period from the end of WWII to the 1960s is described as a time when the state was seen as the dominant engine driving development efforts.

This portion focuses on the central role of capital in early development thinking and the concurrent disagreements on the optimal path to development. The text stresses the consensus that capital accumulation was crucial for investment in nascent industries, fostering economic growth, industrialization, and ultimately national development. However, differing perspectives on how this process unfolded are discussed. The work of Gerschenkron (1962) highlighting that the stages of development depend on a nation’s initial level of 'backwardness' is presented alongside Rostow's (1960) counter-argument that the path is the same for all nations pursuing correct policies. Despite this disparity of views on the pathway, the agreement on the means was strong: capital was identified as a key ingredient. The state's role in efficiently allocating labor to free up capital for industrial growth is emphasized, and the significance of international institutions in setting macroeconomic policies and providing foreign aid as an initial capital boost is also explained.

This section begins by highlighting the criticisms leveled against modernization theory, a dominant framework in early development thinking. The core critique centers on the failure of modernization theory's prescriptions to deliver the promised results. While the theory posited a linear progression from traditional to modern societies, characterized by industrialization and increased material prosperity (as defined by McGillivray, 2012), the reality fell short of these expectations. Even within the modernization school itself, scholars like Gunnar Myrdal (1957) and Albert Hirschmann (1958) acknowledged the limitations of this overly optimistic and linear model, questioning the inevitability of 'virtuous' cycles of growth. The gap between theory and reality became increasingly apparent, paving the way for alternative perspectives to emerge and challenge the dominant paradigm. The shortcomings of modernization theory, therefore, created a space for new critical approaches to development to gain traction, ultimately leading to the rise of dependency theory.

This subsection introduces dependency theory as a significant challenge to modernization theory. The theory, prominently articulated by Raul Prebisch, shifts the focus from internal factors to the role of global power dynamics in perpetuating underdevelopment. Dependency theory posits that poorer nations are locked into a system of unequal exchange, where richer nations utilize their economic and political power to structure international trade to their advantage (Dimarco, 2014). While Prebisch viewed this as a largely inevitable consequence of market forces, Andre Gunder Frank offered a more critical perspective, arguing that underdevelopment is actively perpetuated by richer nations as an inherent feature of their capitalist ethic—'Development and underdevelopment are the opposite sides of the same coin' (Frank, 1975). Frank’s work, often associated with Marxist thought (Stephens, 2014), highlighted the systemic nature of global inequality, emphasizing external forces as the primary determinants of underdevelopment in the global south. This marked a significant departure from the internal-focus of modernization theory.

This section introduces the 'Post-Washington Consensus' as a response to the perceived failures of earlier development models. It represented a move away from the purely state-centric approach of previous decades, recognizing the need for a balance between state intervention and market forces. The consensus, as described by Harriss (2014), acknowledged the essential role of liberal capitalism in development (Fine et al., 2003) but shifted the state's role to be more facilitative. This involved a greater emphasis on institution building and creating an environment conducive to market success, rather than direct state control. This change is described as a move from a mechanistic approach where a single 'good state' model could be applied universally, to a more nuanced understanding of the need to embed markets within specific social contexts, leveraging existing social capital. The goal was to design policies and institutions that could shape rational actors' decisions, leading to development outcomes. The involvement of civil society is explicitly stated as crucial for achieving this balance between state and market forces.

Building upon the previous subsection, this part details the role of institutional building within the Post-Washington Consensus framework. The text highlights a continuing belief, amongst modernist thinkers, in the power of appropriate institutional structures to spur economic growth (North, 1990; Acemoglu, Johnson, & Robinson, 2005) and address broader social issues (Hall & Taylor, 1996; Williamson, 2000; Harriss, Hunter, & Lewis, 2003; Chang, 2002). This approach is contrasted with earlier more interventionist state roles and is characterized by a focus on the state's facilitative role. This section also notes the increasing recognition within liberal IR scholarship of the importance of international institutions operating on the basis of reciprocity to create lasting peace (Keohane and Martin, 1995). The focus here is on establishing the 'rules, norms, and conventions' necessary for successful social and economic interactions (Harriss, 2014), aiming to incentivize human behavior that leads to desired outcomes such as poverty reduction and economic growth. The underlying assumption remains a faith in the ability of the right institutions to positively impact rational actors' decisions and subsequently development itself.

This subsection discusses the broadening of the concept of development beyond purely economic considerations. The shift away from solely focusing on economic growth acknowledged the multidimensional nature of development, encompassing social and political aspects of well-being. The text emphasizes the increasing recognition that decisions about development, particularly at the international level, require explicit value judgments. Amartya Sen's (2001) emphasis on the diversity of freedoms and the need for explicit valuation in assessing social progress is cited. The adoption of a multidimensional approach to development meant that any theory making claims of universality is challenged. The text argues that development requires assessing the relative importance of well-being outcomes, which are culturally diverse and context-specific. This highlights the inherent evaluative dimension of development and the subsequent challenges to achieving universal standards in policy and practice.

This section introduces the postmodern challenge to the dominant liberal framework in development thinking. Postmodern perspectives, as discussed, fundamentally question the epistemological assumptions underlying liberal approaches. The core of the critique lies in the rejection of universal truths and the emphasis on power relations in shaping knowledge and discourse. This contrasts sharply with the liberal emphasis on reason, science, and individual liberty as the primary drivers of progress. Postmodern scholars, drawing heavily from the work of Michel Foucault, highlight the inherent power dynamics embedded in development initiatives, arguing that Western models are often imposed on other cultures, disregarding their unique contexts and needs. The concept of 'development' itself is challenged as a Western construct, and the inherent power imbalances within the global system are placed at the forefront of the analysis. This critique extends to the very notion of objective knowledge and universal principles, questioning the underlying assumptions of liberal development strategies.

This subsection emphasizes the central role of epistemology—the study of knowledge—in the postmodern critique of liberal development. Postmodern thought challenges the liberal belief in the ability of reason to access objective truth and derive universal moral principles to guide development. The section highlights the influence of Foucault's concept of 'discourse' in understanding how power shapes knowledge, arguing that knowledge is not independent of power relations; rather, power actively produces knowledge. This challenges the inherent assumptions of the liberal project, which often positions reason and scientific inquiry as neutral and objective tools for achieving progress. The critique extends to the question of whose knowledge is valued and whose is marginalized in the development process, suggesting that power dynamics influence which knowledge is accepted as legitimate. This focus on epistemology provides a framework for understanding how power structures shape the discourse surrounding development and ultimately influence development outcomes.

The final part of this section explores the implications of the postmodern critique and the potential for alternative approaches to development. The text emphasizes the postmodern rejection of universal standards and norms associated with Western liberal thought. This includes a rejection of the idea of a single, universal path to development—a common tenet within modernization theories. The perspective highlighted is that the ‘Western development project’ is illegitimate due to its imposition of a specific rationality and its tendency towards paternalism (Cowen and Shenton, 1996). The concept of 'trusteeship' (Cowen & Shenton, 1996) is discussed to illustrate this critique, referring to the way Western powers often view development initiatives as having an inherent intent to improve the capacities of others. This critique extends to the very idea of development, proposing that the concept itself must be redefined and reclaimed by those who have been historically marginalized. The work of Escobar (1995) and others emphasizes the importance of reclaiming alternative narratives and envisioning development on terms set by those in the Global South, thus challenging the dominance of Western perspectives.

This section begins by exploring the core tenets of postmodern development theory and its implications for the role of the state. A central idea is that, from a postmodern perspective, social orders and human behavior are fundamentally malleable and, therefore, shapable according to a priori principles. This contrasts with modernist views that often assume a more fixed or predetermined path of development. This malleability implies that human affairs are not inherently constrained but can be actively shaped. The text notes the influence of Hegelian philosophy on both left and right-wing political thought, suggesting that this philosophical lineage informs many postmodern scholars' approaches to development, including those with an affinity for Marxist thought. This sets the stage for exploring how these perspectives alter the understanding of the state's role in development.

This subsection focuses on the seemingly paradoxical re-emergence of the state as a central actor in development discourse, even within a postmodern framework that often critiques state power. The explanation provided is that postmodern thought acknowledges the inherent malleability of social orders and human behavior, meaning that the state can be a tool for shaping human affairs based on predefined principles. This contrasts with perspectives that view the state's role as inherently limited or constrained. The text discusses the complexities of state power within a postmodern lens, suggesting that the state's actions are not predetermined, but can potentially be shaped according to different aims and ideals. The section connects this malleability to the influence of Hegelian philosophy, noting that Hegelian thought has been intertwined with various left and right-wing political projects. Scholars influenced by Hegel, like Laclau and Mouffe, are cited as having a notable affinity with Marxist thought, suggesting a diverse range of perspectives within this school of thought on the potential for the state’s role in development.